Like a rainbow hole in your head

What lies behind our nose?
photography (CT scan rendering)
Kai-hung Fung, 2007

The 2007 Science Visualization Challenge winners have been announced. I love the two (tied) first place winners; although they are both photography, they look like watercolor. Above is Kai-hung Fung’s rainbow rendering of nasal sinuses:

Fung chose to use the patient’s CT images for his rendering, he remembers, because “[she had] a very straight nasal septum and wavy maxillary sinuses; … the anatomy was exceptionally beautiful,” he says.

Normally, CT renderings meld slices together into smooth surfaces, but, in what he terms the “Rainbow Technique,” Fung instead broke them apart, creating a topographical map of the airspaces described by the contour lines of individual slices, and colored according to the density of the tissues that border them.

Fung digitally removed the bones, soft tissue, and fat from the rendering to create a solid “cast” of the sinuses’ air envelope. “The sinuses are hollows in the bone just like the central cavity in a papaya,” he says. One way to get a feel for the shape of such a cavity is to look at a cross section of it, but, he says, it’s much more readily apparent in a mold. (source)

Tied with Fung’s sinuses was an elegant botanical photo, “Irish Moss,” by Andrea Ottesen. The unfurled algae glows against deep black, like a golden mandala.

All the winners, including some remarkable videos, can be seen in this slideshow. The competition was jointly sponsored by the National Science Foundation and Science. Felice Frankel was one of the judges.

Notably, no awards were made in the category of illustration (defined as “Traditional or computer-assisted illustrations and drawings produced to conceptualize the unseen or recreate an object, process or phenomenon (technique). Illustrations and drawings rely primarily on the created image to convey meaning.”)

Also, none of the winners were in traditional media, like watercolor or ink. Does this represent a shift away from using traditional media to depict scientific concepts? I’m really not sure. I hope not. But I do know that traditional media can be a hard sell, both for the added time required to execute a piece, and perhaps because of an implied subjectivity/inaccuracy/”artistic license” when compared with photography. As scientific imaging techniques generate more and more intuitive, even “artistic” results, the need for an artist to reinterpret those results may be diminishing. It’s an interesting question.